We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Click to expand...

As is the case with almost all of these types of threads, your reasonings are quite misleading.

Calling clay Fed's "weakest" surface might technically be accurate, but he's been known for many years to be probably the best clay court player NOT named Nadal. If there was no Nadal, Federer would have won many many more clay titles. Being second to the best ever does not equal "weak." You might more accurately describe clay as Roger's "least totally awesome" surface.

Fed is one of the best ever on all three surfaces. Nadal is one of the best ever on one.

That's a little short sighted. Ever since Nadal started his dominance as the clay GOAT Federer established himself as the indisputed #2 on clay (debatable now with Djokovic's arrival). I don't think you can say the same for Nadal on hard court or grass.

What your stats answers is: Who is more dominant on their respective surfaces, Federer or Nadal? The answer is obviously Nadal but that doesn't make him a more well player.

As is the case with almost all of these types of threads, your reasonings are quite misleading.

Calling clay Fed's "weakest" surface might technically be accurate, but he's been known for many years to be probably the best clay court player NOT named Nadal. If there was no Nadal, Federer would have won many many more clay titles. Being second to the best ever does not equal "weak." You might more accurately describe clay as Roger's "least totally awesome" surface.

Fed is one of the best ever on all three surfaces. Nadal is one of the best ever on one.

We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Click to expand...

Pretty absurd comparison, don't you think Nads should have more titles if you are comparing him on 2 surfaces to Fed on 1. Not to mention there are how many slams a year off of clay on these 2 surfaces. So Nads has 3 chances to win on these surfaces, where Fed has 1 chance. And how many HC masters a year versus clay? Nice trolling with you.

Nadal has the most ridiculous clay-court dominance, and has also won the career Grand Slam. He also had a period of winning 8 titles in 4 months from April to August 2008.

Click to expand...

Impressive as these feats might be, given the context of this thread, this really begs for the question: So what? (I don't see the OP as a worthy discussion)

The main discussion about Federer and Nadal will always see people who are dancing around their h2h, and those who claim h2h does not necessarily make a player better, or the best. I myself support the latter view.

Nadal has had such an excellent career and that is combined with his excellent head-to-heads against his biggest rivals. Federer has the better overall achievements, but has had a losing head-to-head against Nadal since 2005 and also has a losing head-to-head against Murray. Even Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal in head-to-head.

Nadal has had such an excellent career and that is combined with his excellent head-to-heads against his biggest rivals. Federer has the better overall achievements, but has had a losing head-to-head against Nadal since 2005 and also has a losing head-to-head against Murray. Even Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal in head-to-head.

I am just stating Nadal's case

Click to expand...

Nadal's head to head against federer is misleading because federer almost always makes it far enough to meet nadal in the draw but nadal often doesn't make it far enough to meet federer.

So the times when nadal wasnt playing a great tournament and would likely have lost to federer he doesn't even make it that far.

BUT

When Federer is playing a sub par tournament he still makes it to Nadal but then loses.

Oh yes... post prime Federer has the obligation to make USO finals after his peak but Nadal doesn't do it until the last 2 years during his.. Great Logic. Where was Nadal for the preceding 4 years of him winning majors?

Oh yes... post prime Federer has the obligation to make USO finals after his peak but Nadal doesn't do it until the last 2 years during his.. Great Logic. Where was Nadal for the preceding 4 years of him winning majors?

Nadal has enjoyed a nice advantage over his main rivals throughout his career. Something Fed can't say.

Djoker got the best of him last year, and Nadal stopped that this year. Nadal has had the h2h advantage over Fed since 2005 and has not been able to beat Nadal at a slam in five years.. Thats a long freakin time

The only thing that stopped Nadal was injuries.. Something no other player could consistently do

Nadal has enjoyed a nice advantage over his main rivals throughout his career. Something Fed can't say.

Djoker got the best of him last year, and Nadal stopped that this year. Nadal has had the h2h advantage over Fed since 2005 and has not been able to beat Nadal at a slam in five years.. Thats a long freakin time

The only thing that stopped Nadal was injuries.. Something no other player could consistently do

No, Nadal is categorically the best on clay. Nobody comes close to his record on clay.

On grass, there are a few that could be in contention to challenge Federer's status, which is why Fed is NOT categorically the best player ever on grass.

With HC, it's a little hard to tell because the HC at the AO is different to the HC at the USO. At the AO, Fed is clearly not the best ever, especially when it changed to plexicushion.

USO he is also not clearly above every other player that's ever played on the decoturf II.

Click to expand...

On Grass, only Sampras competes. With that said, Federer does have the win over Sampras at Wimbledon (though I don't think it really means much, seeing that it was a very close match when neither of them was close to their primes), the extra Wimbledon final, and the Olympic Silver. I personally think Sampras is (was) the better Grasscourter but Federer does have the better claim to being the GGCOAT.

Coming to hard, come on, it's not even close. 5 USOs, no one's got more. 4 AOs, no one's got more. 6 WTF titles, no one's got more. And look at all his Masters titles there. If you're gonna say Federer isn't that great on plexicushion, you'd be wrong. It was changed when he was past his prime and he still won there once. And you can't just disregard his success on Rebound Ace. You could make the same argument to denigrate Nadal's dominance on clay saying he sucked on Blue Clay by the same token.

Either way, Federer's one of the best Grasscourters ever (if not the best), one of the best Hardcourters ever (if not the best), and arguably the 2nd best Claycourter of his era (second only to the GOAT). And Nadal's just the best Claycourter ever.

Federer's : Clay and Grass (he has 9 HC Slams so it has to be his best surface going by the OP's logic)
Nadal's : Hard and Grass (Clay is obviously his best surface)

Number of Slams Federer has on his two "worst" surfaces : 1+7=8
Number of Slams Nadal has on his two "worst" surfaces : 2+2=4

8>4 ==> Federer>Nadal

:lol:

Click to expand...

Oh my gosh, we could even consider ALL THREE SURFACES! Revolutionary. Anyway in the OP by even bringing this up you concede that Fed is a goat candidate on two of three surfaces, where nadal until 2008 was largely irrelevant off of clay, and has always been patchy off dirt. For me I fail to see how dominating one surface is superior to dominating two. Perhaps the OP would like to explain it to me

Oh my gosh, we could even consider ALL THREE SURFACES! Revolutionary. Anyway in the OP by even bringing this up you concede that Fed is a goat candidate on two of three surfaces, where nadal until 2008 was largely irrelevant off of clay, and has always been patchy off dirt. For me I fail to see how dominating one surface is superior to dominating two. Perhaps the OP would like to explain it to me

Oh yes... post prime Federer has the obligation to make USO finals after his peak but Nadal doesn't do it until the last 2 years during his.. Great Logic. Where was Nadal for the preceding 4 years of him winning majors?

Click to expand...

Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Nadal has enjoyed a nice advantage over his main rivals throughout his career. Something Fed can't say.

Djoker got the best of him last year, and Nadal stopped that this year. Nadal has had the h2h advantage over Fed since 2005 and has not been able to beat Nadal at a slam in five years.. Thats a long freakin time

The only thing that stopped Nadal was injuries.. Something no other player could consistently do

Click to expand...

Uh... No.

Federer's true rivals are guys like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, who he has crushed multiple times. Unlike his current rivals, they are roughly his age and not 5-6 years younger.

Djokovic/Murray and Nadal to some degree are part of the 'new generation' of players to challenge Federer.

And the amazing thing is that despite his age, Federer has managed to successfully keep up with this new generation of rivals. Leading H2H against Djoker and basically tied H2H against Murray is a testament to that.

Bottom line is, calling players 5-6 years younger than Federer his 'main rivals' is delusional. And expecting Federer to lead the H2H between said players in their peak, whilst he is in decline is retarded. ******* will very likely end up with a losing H2H against Djokovic, Murray and Nadal by the time he retires.

tl;dr Federer has demolished an entire generation and subdued another.